It's more like finding a way to beat this philophsy that I don't want to accept but I find it hard to argue against.Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ᵻlɪzəm/ or /ˈni.ᵻlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist. The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.[2] Movements such as Futurism and deconstruction,[3] among others, have been identified by commentators[4] as "nihilistic". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NihilismI wouldn't know how to defeat something like that, I've got more immediate problems requiring my attention. Though I'm pretty sure, hopeless is as hopeless does. But, I'm also pretty sure, that's not you. You're too busy pounding away at your keyboard and trying to get other people to interact with you. You got something else going on there, me thinks this is more a put-on, than the real you. But it's conversation and I don't even need to pay for your beer. :cheese:
It's more like finding a way to beat this philophsy that I don't want to accept but I find it hard to argue against.Philosophy is not some kind of game.
It's more like finding a way to beat this philophsy that I don't want to accept but I find it hard to argue against.Philosophy is not some kind of game. It seems like it. People constantly trying to assert what is true and others trying to argue against that. That's the way with nihilism. It's not something I want to accept but the arguments I have seen against it aren't very strong.
It's more like finding a way to beat this philophsy that I don't want to accept but I find it hard to argue against.Philosophy is not some kind of game. It seems like it. People constantly trying to assert what is true and others trying to argue against that. That's the way with nihilism. It's not something I want to accept but the arguments I have seen against it aren't very strong. You just aren't doing your homework. You're using internet comments as if they are authorities.
It's more like finding a way to beat this philophsy that I don't want to accept but I find it hard to argue against.Philosophy is not some kind of game. It seems like it. People constantly trying to assert what is true and others trying to argue against that. That's the way with nihilism. It's not something I want to accept but the arguments I have seen against it aren't very strong. You just aren't doing your homework. You're using internet comments as if they are authorities. It's similar in your case. You go on about human flourishing even though there is no reasoning as to why one should value that. Or that life is little more than just the distractions that we have created ourselves, I haven't seen anything to strike that down. What difference is there between internet comments and philosophy, isn't it just all opinions?
It's similar in your case. You go on about human flourishing even though there is no reasoning as to why one should value that. Or that life is little more than just the distractions that we have created ourselves, I haven't seen anything to strike that down. What difference is there between internet comments and philosophy, isn't it just all opinions?No, there's no reason. I don't need one. I'm here, that's my reason for wanting to be here. If I had awoken into a living hell it would be different, but I was cared for and fed and given everything I needed to try to figure out "why". The only answer I can think of to that question is "why would you NOT want to flourish?" I've never got past this point in a conversation with anyone who asked that, libertarian, theist, whatever. The "comments" equals "great philosophers through the ages" is the problem with our populist world we live in today. Everyone thinks what they have to say is just as good as the wisdom of the ages. Occasionally it is, but we still need a set of principles that have been discussed and tested to compare against to know that happens.
It's more like finding a way to beat this philophsy that I don't want to accept but I find it hard to argue against.That's because of your anomie. See, I learned a new word today. Thanks, CC.
Seems to me these belong together
The "comments" equals "great philosophers through the ages" is the problem with our populist world we live in today. Everyone thinks what they have to say is just as good as the wisdom of the ages. Occasionally it is, but we still need a set of principles that have been discussed and tested to compare against to know that happens.
It's more like finding a way to beat this philophsy that I don't want to accept but I find it hard to argue against.That's because of you anomie. See, I learned a new word today. good word, I feel like cutting and pasting definition but will refrain. :cheese: Happy December 25th, it's a most wonderful day (for the lucky ones).
It's similar in your case. You go on about human flourishing even though there is no reasoning as to why one should value that. Or that life is little more than just the distractions that we have created ourselves, I haven't seen anything to strike that down. What difference is there between internet comments and philosophy, isn't it just all opinions?No, there's no reason. I don't need one. I'm here, that's my reason for wanting to be here. If I had awoken into a living hell it would be different, but I was cared for and fed and given everything I needed to try to figure out "why". The only answer I can think of to that question is "why would you NOT want to flourish?" I've never got past this point in a conversation with anyone who asked that, libertarian, theist, whatever. The "comments" equals "great philosophers through the ages" is the problem with our populist world we live in today. Everyone thinks what they have to say is just as good as the wisdom of the ages. Occasionally it is, but we still need a set of principles that have been discussed and tested to compare against to know that happens. The "wisdom of the ages" is still just a personal opinion. They were in the same position as we are now. Also you are appealing to ancient wisdom which is a fallacy. Also your answer is insufficient as it just dodges the question. A reason to not do so is because it's difficult to just try and exist each day, and to try to apply that to all humans is exhausting. What logical reason could there be to want humanity to flourish?
Seems to me these belong togethergood word, I feel like cutting and pasting definition but will refrain. :cheese: Happy December 25th, it's a most wonderful day (for the lucky ones). Too bad the word is improperly used. And the 25th is no different from any other day.The "comments" equals "great philosophers through the ages" is the problem with our populist world we live in today. Everyone thinks what they have to say is just as good as the wisdom of the ages. Occasionally it is, but we still need a set of principles that have been discussed and tested to compare against to know that happens.It's more like finding a way to beat this philophsy that I don't want to accept but I find it hard to argue against.That's because of you anomie. See, I learned a new word today.
The "wisdom of the ages" is still just a personal opinion. They were in the same position as we are now. Also you are appealing to ancient wisdom which is a fallacy. Also your answer is insufficient as it just dodges the question. A reason to not do so is because it's difficult to just try and exist each day, and to try to apply that to all humans is exhausting. What logical reason could there be to want humanity to flourish?First, I have not sat down at the computer all day, it's just coincidence that you just posted 20 minutes ago. I went to church, chopped some wood and I'm going doing my favorite Christmas tradition next, going to see a Star Wars movie. I did not commit a fallacy. By "wisdom of the ages", I meant accumulated wisdom. I meant the result of people building on each other's knowledge throughout the ages. If you think that is a fallacy, then you don't understand logic. If you would like to name the fallacy, show me a definition and show how I committed, I'd be glad to consider it. Chuck Todd said today that it's conceivable that the Constitution could be amended and we could get a 3rd or 4th term for Trump or his successor. This trend of authoritarianism could continue indefinitely. In that case, I might end up agreeing with you, that humans should not flourish, that we need to wipe out most of them and hope something better is left in the rubble. Meanwhile, I'll stick with Voltaire and Aristotle and Hume and Bernie and Pinker and believe in our better nature.
Humans at their base don’t have a better nature. But the fallacy is an appeal to ancient wisdom. How old something is has no bearing on how wise it is, especially when its just opinion. It’s not knowledge, is just their personal view
The "wisdom of the ages" is still just a personal opinion. They were in the same position as we are now. Also you are appealing to ancient wisdom which is a fallacy. Also your answer is insufficient as it just dodges the question. A reason to not do so is because it's difficult to just try and exist each day, and to try to apply that to all humans is exhausting. What logical reason could there be to want humanity to flourish?First, I have not sat down at the computer all day, it's just coincidence that you just posted 20 minutes ago. I went to church, chopped some wood and I'm going doing my favorite Christmas tradition next, going to see a Star Wars movie. I did not commit a fallacy. By "wisdom of the ages", I meant accumulated wisdom. I meant the result of people building on each other's knowledge throughout the ages. If you think that is a fallacy, then you don't understand logic. If you would like to name the fallacy, show me a definition and show how I committed, I'd be glad to consider it. Chuck Todd said today that it's conceivable that the Constitution could be amended and we could get a 3rd or 4th term for Trump or his successor. This trend of authoritarianism could continue indefinitely. In that case, I might end up agreeing with you, that humans should not flourish, that we need to wipe out most of them and hope something better is left in the rubble. Meanwhile, I'll stick with Voltaire and Aristotle and Hume and Bernie and Pinker and believe in our better nature.
Quoting an older post doesn’t counter my previous one. Is still the appea to ancient wisdom (even then the wisdom you mention is just personal opinion and it doesn’t answer the question as to why we should value human flourishing).
This might also be relevant.
There is no such fallacy as an appeal to wisdom.
You added the “ancient” part.
And how did you find that story?
There is no such fallacy as an appeal to wisdom. You added the "ancient" part. And how did you find that story?Is more a synthesis of two fallacies that it qualifies for: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ancient_wisdom
It’s only a fallacy if I appeal to the wisdom because it is ancient. I didn’t do that. I appealed to it because it’s logical. So, there’s no logical fallacy of an appeal to logic. I also said it was tested through time, there’s no fallacy of an appeal to something passing tests and being proven. Appeal to authority works the same way. You are trying to say that authority doesn’t exist at all. Our President-Elect used that to get elected, so you’ll see a lot of that in the years to come.
As for the “value of a life” thing. It’s bad logic. The dragon analogy makes no sense. It treats the whole population as if they think alike. It leaves the idea of fighting the dragon to the very end as an afterthought. It’s all a setup for the 1,000 tickets conversation, that represents no one I’ve ever known. If you click the “this guy says it better” link at the top, it’s easier to spot the error. He tries to setup calculations of value, but leaves off calculating anything that is inconvenient for his point. So, if you agree with him, it seems to make sense, but it has no power to convince anyone. For example, he talks about the odds of dying while you drive to work, so the amount you get paid doesn’t balance out the value of you staying alive. But he leaves off calculating the cost of staying at home. That is guaranteed to end up bad, but he ignores that.
It's only a fallacy if I appeal to the wisdom because it is ancient. I didn't do that. I appealed to it because it's logical. So, there's no logical fallacy of an appeal to logic. I also said it was tested through time, there's no fallacy of an appeal to something passing tests and being proven. Appeal to authority works the same way. You are trying to say that authority doesn't exist at all. Our President-Elect used that to get elected, so you'll see a lot of that in the years to come. As for the "value of a life" thing. It's bad logic. The dragon analogy makes no sense. It treats the whole population as if they think alike. It leaves the idea of fighting the dragon to the very end as an afterthought. It's all a setup for the 1,000 tickets conversation, that represents no one I've ever known. If you click the "this guy says it better" link at the top, it's easier to spot the error. He tries to setup calculations of value, but leaves off calculating anything that is inconvenient for his point. So, if you agree with him, it seems to make sense, but it has no power to convince anyone. For example, he talks about the odds of dying while you drive to work, so the amount you get paid doesn't balance out the value of you staying alive. But he leaves off calculating the cost of staying at home. That is guaranteed to end up bad, but he ignores that.Yes the whole link smacks of crazy logic and I had no idea what happened that got him there. But what you said hasn't been tested through time, it's merely and opinion and one that cannot be tested. It doesn't answer whether life is worth living or not or why one should even bother with human flourishing. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason for it and yet there is one against it, simply because the effort required to maintain the race is large and to do so consistently without any idea why is illogical. Or to put it simply, it's hard to live and the small rewards you get out of it aren't worth the massive suffering that life entails. People blab about life being a gift as if it were axiomatic, but when pressed you find that they can't say why it's a gift. Suicide seems rather rational compared to choosing life.
The National Suicide Prevention Hotline is 1-800-273-8255